Hi Charlie, hi all,
Am 28.03.2016 um 05:32 schrieb Charlie Perkins
<charles.perkins@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
Hello Lotte and all,
I can't find any email with text for the RERR table. So here's some new text
for that purpose.
As we discussed, it is not important for interoperability.
Add a new subsection in section 4:
The transmission of each RERR message should be recorded
in a conceptual table called the RECENT_RERR_MESSAGE table that includes
the following entries:
- time for deletion = current_time + RERR_AGELIMIT
- Unreachable Addresses
- The destination address: either PktSrc or LL-MANET-Routers
Entries in RECENT_RERR_MESSAGE table SHOULD be deleted after
their time for deletion.
Add this text at JWD's comment
A new RERR message MUST NOT be generated if it matches the
same destination and the Unreachable Addresses are a subset of the
Unreachable Addresses in an entry of the RECENT_RERR_MESSAGE table.
Add a line to Table 2:
RERR_AGELIMIT | 3 seconds (or whatever you like)
Regards,
Charlie P.
On 3/27/2016 6:38 PM, Stan Ratliff wrote:
Lotte,
On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Lotte Steenbrink <
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx
<mailto:lotte.steenbrink@xxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Hi all,
iirc, our consensus is to get a new Draft out as soon as we can… In order to
get that done, I’ve got a few issues I feel personally responsible for but
I’ll need your help with, so I thought I’d send a quick reminder since we’re
all busy people and E-mails get lost quickly:
1. Security Considerations TODOs:
There are still a lot of TODOs in our Security Considerations (see
http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/attachment/488740/1/13.%20Security%20Considerations_v3.txt
<http://ietf.10.n7.nabble.com/attachment/488740/1/13.%20Security%20Considerations_v3.txt>
). I put them there because I either couldn’t figure out the answer myself,
or because I wasn’t sure if my answer was good enough. If you could have a
look at them and send me any proposals for update (or a yay/nay, for example
concerning (- is this sufficient? Am I overlooking a way to prevent this
here?) in 13.1.1 Denial of Service), that’d be super helpful.
I took a look at the link - BTW, you've done a super job of collecting all
of this. I'll need some more time to read & study, but wanted you to know
I'm looking at it.
2. Resolving all JWD!s:
The critical issues raised by Justin that I have not resolved yet are:
(How does one know which outgoing interface is the neighbor associated with?
This seems like a very LARGE missing piece of required information JWD!)
(How is this done? There is no table with recently sent RERR messages to
check. There needs to be though. JWD!)
(AODVv2_INTERFACES isn’t defined before now it should be. Also what does
this configuration consist of? Also is the list empty if there is only one
interface? JWD!)
These all depend on Text promised by Charlie– I think the first one is part
of a bigger discussion (the „is using MAC addresses a good idea/super
painful“ one, iirc), but we still need to drill down on the Language that
describes the *exact formatting* of the InterfaceSet (which is currently
held in the thread „Definition for AODVv2_INTERFACES“). That would also
resolve the third issue.
Charlie, did you find the time to write said text yet? I f you didn’t and
won’t please say so, and in this case, does anybody else have the time? I
can try, but I’m not quite sure about the quality I’ll be able to deliver,
so somebody is going to have to volunteer to proofread that stuff.
I'm in the same boat you are - I can give it a go, but I'm *sure* it will be
sliced and diced on a proofreading...:-)
What does the editorial team think about getting a Google hangout setup for
this week? I'd really like to see us post a draft version, with a list of
items addressed (and items still to be addressed) when the IETF website
opens back up on April 4. At least we're not talking about posting on April
fools day... :-) (Honest, true story - if you'll go browse
<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,353,261.PN.&OS=PN/7,353,261&RS=PN/7,353,261>http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,353,261.PN.&OS=PN/7,353,261&RS=PN/7,353,261
<http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=7,353,261.PN.&OS=PN/7,353,261&RS=PN/7,353,261>
, you'll see that the U.S. Patent office does *NOT* take the day off
issuing patents on April Fool's day.... it kinda puts a sting into something
that should be an achievement for a software engineer...) ;-)
Regards,
Stan
Best regards,
Lotte
